Re: Rumsfeld: Foot-In-Mouth award winner

Ernst Blofeld wrote:
> midtowng wrote:
> > Ernst Blofeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote...
> > > midtowng wrote:

> > > > http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/01/rumsfeld.english.reut/index.html 
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Reports that say something hasn't happened are always interesting to
> > > > me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we
> > > > know we know," Rumsfeld told a news briefing.
> > > >    "We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know
> > > > there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown
> > > > unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."
> > > >
> > > > John Lister, spokesman for the campaign, which strives to have public
> > > > information delivered in clear, straightforward English, said: "We
> > > > think we know what he means. But we don't know if we really know."
> > > > [...]
> > > >
> > > >  Very Danesque I must say.

> > > This is actually quite brilliant. It's rigorously logical and
> > > expressed in a memorable style. If Lister is complaining about
> > > this he'll probably be bitching about Tintern Abbey or
> > > Sense & Sensibility next, or maybe complaining that
> > > "to be or not to be" is, like, confusing, man.

> >  Are you joking?

> No.

> It's a nice piece of prose style that captures the essense
> of the idea well. There are things we know, things we know
> we don't know, and things we don't know we don't know.

The trouble is that it leaves out the things that we
think we know but that we really don't know.  I think
that was the point of John Lister's comment, though I
can't be sure.

> The juxtaposition of "know" in reference to the thing
> being analyzed, the analysis of the thing, and the
> analysis of the analysis of the thing is quite clever.

Been there, done that.

> What's more, it was intended to be that way from the
> start. The paragraph was carefully crafted to be both
> striking and correct. This was not a stumble or a fumble;
> it was a coherent thought well expressed.

It was an old idea, not expressed very well, that left
out a bunch of other options.  Even Wittgenstein would
have been clearer.  Having said that, I'm not complaining;
the possibility that Rumsfeld actually understood what
he said is encouraging, even though his actions suggest
the contrary.



--


[EMAIL PROTECTED]           http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt